Limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the Court's reluctance to re-adjudicate disputes on their merits.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Arbitration Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Allow the instant objections and set aside the Award dated 30.06.2021 passed in matter of "M/s S.S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. v/s A.I.I.M.S" passed by Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Sole Arbitrator, Former Special Director General, CPWD, T-17, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

b) Award the cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent."

2. Despite the matter being passed over on the first call at the request of proxy counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, the same request has been made by proxy counsel again on the second call.

3. This Court has perused the order sheets dated 24th February, 2022, 12th October, 2022, where on the said dates respectively, pass over was sought and an adjournment slip was moved on behalf of the petitioner.

4. The matter is pending since 2022 without issuance of notice to the other party. The counsel who has been engaged by the petitioner has not perused the matter or assisted the Court for even the purpose of issuance of notice to the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on advance notice since the very first date. The written submissions have already been filed on behalf of the parties, which are on record.

6. Since no one is able to assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner and the matter is pending for over a year, that too, without issuance of notice, this Court is left with no option, but to hear the matter on merit with the assistance of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent and the material on record.

7. The background of the case reveals that the petitioner invited tender for construction of OPD Block for AIIMS, Ballabgarh, Hayana. The respondent submitted its proposed rates which were subsequently accepted by the petitioner vide Letter of Acceptance dated 12th February 2014/14th February 2014. The date of completion of the work was stipulated to be 26th April 2017 and accordingly, the respondent was handed over the site on 26th February 2014/28th February 2014.

8. The petitioner was aggrieved by the failure to deploy resources on the part of the respondent as well as the delay in execution and completion of the work within the stipulated period. Hence, the arbitration clause was invoked by the parties and a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

9. Upon completion of the arbitration proceedings, the learned sole arbitrator passed the Award dated 30th June 2021. The petitioner being aggrieved of the findings of the sole arbitrator in relation Claims No. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 has filed the instant petition.

10. The grounds raised in the pleadings on behalf of the petitioner are as follows:

a. The impugned Award is contrary to the settled law and the learned arbitrator has exceeded its jurisdiction by going beyond what was agreed between the parties in Clause 10C of the Contract and thereby awarding an amount of Rs.3,52,16,016/- in favour of the respondent. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed in Associated Engineering Co. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) 4 SCC 93

b. The learned arbitrator committed an error by ignoring the factual position surrounding the computation of 25 months as the delay period for the purposes of compensation, however, the respondent never raised any notice with respect to the compensation of delay, specifically when time was essence of the Contract.

c. It is a settled principle of law that time being the `essence of the Contract' no more remains `an essence' when the extension of the same is allowed for performance of contractual obligation against a cost or penalty. Therefore, without invoking the extension clause of a Contract it is not only unjustified and unreasonable for the learned arbitrat